"... raped by her uncle t... has to carry the child to term?"

[PoliticalChic]

I think abortion is horrible but forced gestation is worse. It is not the job of the state to force someone to do certain things with what is growing in their bodies.

That 'thing' is an entirely separate and individual human being.

The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

 

[TNHarley]

That 'thing' is an entirely separate and individual human being.

The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

Once born, it is a different picture. Obviously.
A fetus is not separated from the mother. Not until birth. And i really dont care. Forced gestation from the State is tyranny.

 

[Mac-7]

Abortion in the US was not against the law until the 1880's.

And before the 1880s slavery was still legal in some places around the world also

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once born, it is a different picture. Obviously.
A fetus is not separated from the mother. Not until birth. And i really dont care. Forced gestation from the State is tyranny.

So passing through those few inches provides immunity from Democrat homicide?


Seems kind of random.

Especially since in 98.5% of the murders the reason is simply convenience.

Convenience.....that means like having your groceries delivered so you don't have to actually carry 'em home.....even after you ordered them.

And, let's not forget, in those 98.5%, the one ordering the murder participated willingly in the creation of the progeny. How about suggesting that the murder mastermind simply avoid creating the victim?

 

[JohnDB]

American/Westernized society has always owned a completely incongruent set of morals...

Currently it's:
If you spank a child for disciplinary measures you are a monster that needs to be placed in the worst prison imaginable...
BUT
If you kill an unborn baby you are a smart woman making smart choices.

Something incongruent is also going on with women's sports as well in favor of transvestites...

 

[PoliticalChic]

American/Westernized society has always owned a completely incongruent set of morals...

Currently it's:
If you spank a child for disciplinary measures you are a monster that needs to be placed in the worst prison imaginable...
BUT
If you kill an unborn baby you are a smart woman making smart choices.

Something incongruent is also going on with women's sports as well in favor of transvestites...

Intuitive, and succinct.

 

[shoshi]

I think a woman has the right to choose abortion in case of rape incest or medical reasons such as birth defects or when them mothers life is in danger. It would not bother me if abortion were illegal except in those cases. I think using abortion as birth control is wrong.

 

[TNHarley]

So passing through those few inches provides immunity from Democrat homicide?


Seems kind of random.

Especially since in 98.5% of the murders the reason is simply convenience.

Convenience.....that means like having your groceries delivered so you don't have to actually carry 'em home.....even after you ordered them.

And, let's not forget, in those 98.5%, the one ordering the murder participated willingly in the creation of the progeny. How about suggesting that the murder mastermind simply avoid creating the victim?

I get all that. I think abortion is horrible... I just think the state forcing gestation is worse.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think a woman has the right to choose abortion in case of rape incest or medical reasons such as birth defects or when them mothers life is in danger. It would not bother me if abortion were illegal except in those cases. I think using abortion as birth control is wrong.

Rape or incest total 1 and 1/2 percent of all abortions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I get all that. I think abortion is horrible... I just think the state forcing gestation is worse.

Both are a problem.

But one is worse....it takes an innocent human life.

 

[shoshi]

Rape or incest total 1 and 1/2 percent of all abortions.

And if abortion were illegal except for those cases or medical emergency cases i would not object.

 

[TNHarley]

Both are a problem.

But one is worse....it takes an innocent human life.

It takes one, presumptively.
We disagree, and thats ok.
This is entirely subjective.
Some people strive for freedom, some people strive for the state to push their morality on others.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It takes one, presumptively.
We disagree, and thats ok.
This is entirely subjective.
Some people strive for freedom, some people strive for the state to push their morality on others.

I don't believe murder fits in any definition of 'morality.'

 

[initforme]

I'm against abortion. There are so many ways not to get pregnant. There's no viable reason why a woman who doesn't want kids can't avoid getting pregnant. God has given humans brains to create medical advances
To avoid conception. A declining birthrate is a healthy trend.

 

[initforme]

If a young traditionally married couple decides against having kids as a nation we should be applauding that decision.

 

[TNHarley]

I don't believe murder fits in any definition of 'morality.'

I dont consider it murder.
I dont even consider a fetus a human being.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I dont consider it murder.
I dont even consider a fetus a human being.

Have you heard of DNA?

 

[initforme]

If it's not human DNA what is it? Contraception, a miracle, prevents all of this.

 

[Moonglow]

And before the 1880s slavery was still legal in some places around the world also

And in yer mind slavery and abortion are one in the same.

 

[Moonglow]

I don't believe murder fits in any definition of 'morality.'

Then why do you bend your knee to a murderous God?